Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, to the House. While not wishing in any way to undermine the Minister of State's position, it is regrettable the senior Minister is not here to take this matter.

This matter is to discuss the outcome of a report from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces appeal of redress of wrongs, June 2015. I acknowledge the work done by the senior Minister for the Defence Forces. As was remarked in the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, SIGNALmagazine in December, the senior Minister has been recognised as an advocate, not just for members of the Defence Forces but for those who served in uniform in this country. The Minister of State has been to many an event involving the Defence Forces and I know both Ministers hold the Defence Forces in high esteem.

Having said that, however, I find it regrettable that the same cannot be said of some of the Department’s officials who seem unaware, even indifferent, to the needs of those who serve. We are joined in the Gallery by the complainant in the case I have raised. I am honoured and proud to represent him, given that he has given more than 40 years of distinguished service as a commissioned officer. The case I am referring to is not of the Minister of State’s making but arises from a simple but devastating administrative error. It was a simple mathematical error, an error which forced a man who served this country with distinction to retire two years early from his post as a lieutenant colonel in the Permanent Defence Forces, when, in fact, he should have gone on to serve two more years at the rank of colonel.

The commissioned officer's service commenced in 1972 and he continued to serve until he was retired forcibly in 2013. The case concerns a competition for promotion which was held in the spring of 2012. At that time, the officer in question was serving in Kosovo as an acting colonel. Following the interview process, the officer in question was placed 11th in the order of merit. The top nine applicants were promoted.

As part of the interview process, candidates were awarded marks under several headings, one of which was length of service. As was his right, the officer in question sought an analysis of the marks to be satisfied that all marks were awarded correctly. On examination, he found that two of candidates were erroneously awarded marks to which they were not entitled. The officer in question complained to his superiors that an error had been made with respect to the awarding of marks in respect of length of service. Had length of service marks been awarded correctly to all applicants, two of the applicants originally placed ahead of the complainant would have been ranked below this officer and he would have been placed ninth. As such, he would have been promoted to the rank of colonel.

The military authorities rejected the officer's complaint, stating it was without foundation and that all marks were correctly awarded. Dissatisfied with this response and having completed the internal redress process, the officer in question referred the matter to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, as was his right. Before his retirement, the ombudsman was a military judge, equalled only by a judge of the High Court. Furthermore, the ombudsman had, prior to his appointment as a military judge, been Deputy Judge Advocate General, making him the most senior military legal authority at that time. We can all agree the ombudsman was not only charged with adjudicating on the matter but was well qualified to do so.The first report of the ombudsman issued in March 2014. However, from evidence I have before me, it would seem that the work of the ombudsman in this case was not made easy. It would seem that he was frustrated at every turn by the military. Following his initial report in 2014, he was forced to wait almost six months for the military authorities to provide-----